Smt. K. Neelima

1CC.No.401/2015, dt:27-10-2016

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

RAJAHMUNDRY

PRESENT : Smt. K.Neelima, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, (FAC)III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of first Class, Rajahmundry

Thursday, the 27th day of October ' 2016

C C No.401/2015

Between

Penukonda.Uday Shankar, S/o.Adi Raman, Hindu, Aged 55 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.10­426/4, Santhoshnagar, Konthamuru,

Rajahmahendravaram. .. Complainant

AND Mannem Lalitha, W/o.L.Mutyalarao, Hindu, Aged 64 years, Property, R/o.D.No.86­3­15/1, Plot No.27, Vadrevunagar,

Shirdi Sai Marg, Rajahmahendravaram. .. Accused

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 27­10­2016 in the presence of Sri SKM.Basha, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri G.S.N.Murthy, Advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter refered as “the Act”) praying the court to punish the accused according to law and grant compensation to him as provided U/s 357 of Cr.P.C in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the accused borrowed an amount of

Rs.9,00,000/­ from the complainant on 21­05­2014 for the purpose of meeting her family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and agreed to repay the same with an interest @ 24 % p.a. and accused executed a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant after receipt of entire consideration at Konthamuru, Rajahmundry, from the complainant.

The accused did not discharge the said amount, and inspite of several repeated demands 8 made by the complainant the accused issued a cheque bearing No.073383 on 18­07­ 2015 for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/­ drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., T.Nagar Branch,

Rajahmundry towards part payment of the above debt. Believing the words of the accused, the complainant presented the same for collection in his account at Bank of

Baroda, Fort Gate Branch, Rajahmundry and the said cheque was returned with endorsement that “ACCOUNT CLOSED” along with its cheque return memo dt.05­08­ 2015. The complainant further submitted that he issued a statutory legal notice to the accused through his counsel on 26­08­2015 and the accused received the same on 27­08­ 2015, and the accused failed to comply demands made in the notice. Hence, the complaint. 

3.Case has been taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.

4. Copies of documents have been furnished to the accused as contemplated U/s 207

Cr.P.C. 

5.Accused was examined U/s 251 Cr.P.C, and explained about the accusation under the Act. She denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 

6.To prove the case, the complainant, he himself examined as PW1, and got examined one of the attestor of promissory note as Pw2, and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6. 

7.After completion of complainant side evidence, the accused was examined U/s 313 of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material found against her, explained to her in Telugu, and she denied the same.

8.Heard arguments submitted by learned counsel for the complainant and accused. 

9. Now the point for consideration is : “Whether the complainant proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act?” 

10. POINT : The complainant alleging that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.9 lakhs from the complainant on 21­05­2014 for the purpose of meeting his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and agreed to repay the same with an interest @ 3CC.No.401/2015, dt:27-10-2016 24 % p.a. and executed a on demand promissory note in favour of the complainant on the same day after receipt of the entire consideration. The said transaction held at

Konthamuru, Rajahmundry Rural.

The accused approached the complainant on 18­07­2015 and handed over a cheque for an amount of Rs.12 lakhs on 18­07­2015 cheque bearing No.073383 drawan on ICICI Bank Ltd., T.Nagar, Rajahmundry towards part payment of the amount due under promissory note and reported that she is maintaining sufficient funds in her account. Then the complainant believing the words of the accused presented the said cheque before Bank of Baroda, Fort Gate, Rajahmundry and the said cheque was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement “ Account Closed”. Then the complainant informed the same to the accused by way of issuing statutory legal notice on 26­08­2015 and demanded the accused to repay the said cheque amount and the accused received the said notice on 27­08­2015. Since the accused did not come forward to pay the amount due under cheque. The complainant filed this present case against accused.

On receipt of summons the accused made her appearance and got filed vakalat on her behalf and contested the matter, but she did not came forward to file written statements to put forth her defence plea.

During the last week June 2015 some persons by name P.S.R.N.Sathish, K.Bhagavat

Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Pilla Naga Dhanumjaya, D.Suryanarayana Raju, D.Durga Venkata

Hymavathi, E.Siva Ganesh high handedly entered into the house of accused and forcibly took away unsigned cheque leafs from the cheque book pertaining to ICICI bank account of the accused and original aadhar card of the accused and the said persons got filed the present complaint though the complaint and also filed several cases against accused with a view to get wrongful gain. The accused further contended that the signatures found on subject promissory note and cheque are not that of her and the said signature are forged and she has no liability to pay the amount due under the subject cheque.

In view of the defence pleaded by the accused the burden lies on the prosecution to establish that the accused borrowed amount by executing promissory note and issued a 8 cheque towards discharge of the amount due under the promissory note and failed to sent the cheque and thereby liable for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 of NI Act.

11. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the complainant himself examined as

Pw1 and examined one of the attestor of the promissory note examined as Pw2. The complainant in order to substantiate his contention exhibited Ex.P1 to P6. Among the said documents Ex.P1 is cheque dt: 18­07­2015, Ex.P2 is cheque return memo issued by

ICICI Bank Ltd., Ex.P3 is office copy of legal notice, Ex.P4 is postal acknowledgement,

Ex.P5 is certified copy of promissorynote executed by the accused in favour of the complainant, Ex.P6 is Certified Copy pf plaint filed in O.S.487/2015 on the file of Jon’ble

Principal District Judges Court, Rajahmundry. Relying on the above said evidence

counsel for the complainant argued that the oral testimony of Pws 1 and 2 coupled with

Ex.P1 to P6 clinchingly established the guilt of the accused and the accused liable for punishment. Now I proceeded to examine the evidence let in by both parties. The complainant in order to prove his contention he got examined himself as Pw1. He reiterated complaint averments in his chief examination and he got marked Ex.P1 to P6 as narrated above. During the cross examination it was suggested to Pw1 that he has no financial capacity to lend the amount and the same was denied by him. Pw1 stated that he got acquaintance with the accused through one Allu Kiran who is colleague of his father in law. Pw1 deposed that while borrowing amount theaccused deposited Xerox copies of her house property and executed a promissory note in his favor and the accused informed to him that the original house deeds are deposited in bank.

The counsel for the accused suggested to Pw1 that during the last week of June 2015 some persons by name P.S.R.N Sathish, K.Bhagavat Kumar, Ashok Kumar,

P.Dhanumjaya, D.Suryanarayana Raju, D.Durga Venkata Hymavathi, E.Siva Ganesh high handedly entered into the house of accused and forcibly took unsigned cheque leafs from the cheque book pertaining to the bank account of the accused along with Aadhar Card and the said persons taking advantage of the cheque leafs of accused got filed a false case against the accused. The said suggestion denied by Pw1. 

5CC.No.401/2015, dt:27-10-2016

Pw1 admitted that he filed a civil suit for recovery of amount due under Ex.P5 promissory note and he filed a certified copy of plaint under Ex.P6. Pw1 reported no objection to sent the cheque to ascertain the signatures of the accused to an handwriting expert. It was suggested to Pw1 he has not entitled to get any relief, he filed the present complaint relying on forged documents and the said suggestion denied by Pw1.

12. To corroborate his evidence the complainant got examined one of the attestor of

Ex.P5 as Pw2. As per his evidence on 21­05­2014 the accused approached the complainant and borrowed an amount of Rs.9 lakhs for the purpose of her family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and agreed to repay the same with an interest @ 24% p.a and she received the amount and executed a demand promissory note in favor of the complainant. He further deposed that he was present at the time of transaction under Ex.P5 and he scribed his signature as an attestor. He went on to depose that one

Allu Kiran scribed the said promissory note. During his chief examination, Pw2 identified his signature and deposed about the contents of Ex.P5 promissory note. 

During the cross examination he submitted that he know the accused since two years and he saw the accused for the first time when she came to borrow amount from the complainant. During the cross examination Pw2 categorically stated that the accused scribed her signature on Ex.P5 in his presence. It was suggested to Pw2 that the accused never borrowed amount and inturn never executed promissory note in favor of the complainant and she did not issued any cheque and Ex.P5 promissory note is fabricated and the said suggestion denied by Pw2.

13. As seen from the evidence of Pw1 and 2 it is found that the complainant by examining himself and the attestor of Ex.P5 and by placing the documentary proof Ex.P1 to P6 primafacie established that the accused borrowed amount from him and executed a promissory note. Thereafter issued a cheque towards payment of amount due under the promissory note. Here it is pertinent to mention that though the accused contended that the signature found on subject promissory note and cheque under Ex.P1 and P5 are forged documents and her signature was forged. She did not raised any objection while marking Ex.P1 to P5.

8 In view of the evidence let in by the complainant it is established that the complainant established his case and discharged his initial burden. Now in view of the defence pleaded by the accused that the signatures are forged the burden shifts to the accused to establish her contention that the signatures found on Ex.P1 and P5 are not that of her.

In order to prove her contention the accused did not came forward and not even entered into the witness box to depose her own case. From this an inference can be drawn that the evidence set up by the accused is false. Here it is pertinent to mention that the accused during the trial initiated steps to sent her disputed signatures for experts opinion. The said petition filed by the accused decide on merits and allowed and the disputed signatures along with admitted signatures and specimen signatures sent to the expert. But the expert, they examined the signatures returned the file stating that the expert opined that unless the admitted signatures of Mannem Lalitha transactions made in the ICICI Bank Ltd., is not proved and it is not possible to study variations and to offer a different opinion. It shows that the expert failed to compare the signatures which are disputed with that of admitted signatures of the accused. In view of the failure of the accused to furnish her signatures relating to the transactions made in ICICI Bank.

Therefore though standard signatures 17 in number sent to the expert opinion, he failed to compare the disputed signature with that of standard signatures of accused.

Under the above said circumstances this court with a view to do justification invoking powers contemplated U/Sec.73 of Indian evidence Act minutely perused the disputed signatures found on Ex.P1 and P5 and compared the said signatures with the admitted signatures found on the vakalath and the account opening form. It contains the contemporary signatures of the accused and this court noticed her similar signatures are same stroke and curving therefore I hold that the signatures found on Ex.P1 and P5 are that of accused. Had the defence plea of the accused is true she could have filed a complainant against the persons who alleged to be entered into her house high handedly and took away her cheque leafs from her cheque book till date no complaint lodged by the accused against the said persons. This is a part that the said version of the accused is 7CC.No.401/2015, dt:27-10-2016 true she ought to have issue a reply notice by noting her defence plea P.S.R.N.Sathish,

K.Bhagavat Kumar, Ashok Kumar, P.N.Dhanunjaya, D.Suryanarayana Raju, D.Durga

Venkata Hymavathi and E.Siva Ganesh and took away cheque leafs from her house. But she failed to issue reply to the statutory notice and even failed to file a written statement in the present case. All these aspects to show against the interest of the accused. In view of the failure of the accused to initiate steps against the persons and issued reply notice leads this court to hold that the defence set up by the accused is follows and the said defence set up only for the purpose of this case and to evade her liability due under

Ex.P1 and P5.

 Before further proceeding, I believe that Section 118 of NI Act has a bearing in

this case. Hence I re­produce the same for convenience sake :

118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments :­ Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made –

(a) that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration ;

(b) as to date; that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date ;

(c) as to time of acceptance ; that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity ;

(d) as to time of transfer ; that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity ;

(e) as to order of indorsements ; that the indorsements appearing upon a negotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon ;

(f) as to stamps ; that a lost promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque was duly stamped ;

(g) that holder is a holder in due course ; that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course ; provided that , where the instrument has been obtained from its lawful owner, or from any person in lawful custody thereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the maker or acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.

In the case on hand, the accused contended that she did not borrow any amount and issue any cheque to the complainant. It is already discussed above that the complainant by examining himself and by placing Exs.P1 to P6 discharged his initial burden that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.9,00,000/­ under Ex.P5 and issued

Ex.P1 cheque towards part payment of amount due under Ex.P5 and the said cheque was 8 dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Under those circumstances the burden shifts to the accused to prove her contention that she never borrowed the amount from the complainant. It was already discussed supra that the defence of the accused is not proved. The inaction on the part of accused is driving this Court to take adverse inference against her. Thus the evidence let in by the accused, in my considered opinion, could not satisfy the conscious of this court, to say that the accused rebutted the presumption laid under Section 118 and section 139 of the Act.

14. The evidence adduced by the accused did not prove the contrary version. The guiding principles of our Hon'ble supreme court reported in AIR 2001 SC 3897 which says that “ issuance of cheque once admitted or proved under section 139 of Negotiable

Instrument Act has to presume that the holder of the cheque received cheque in discharge of whole or part of debt or liability “ cannot be ignored. Similarly the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2009 SC 1518 also observed that it is for the drawer/accused to rebut presumption and prove non existence of consideration and debt or liability. In view of the failure of the accused to adduce evidence as per Section 139 of the Act, section 118 of the Act comes into play and it is deemed that the cheque was issued for legally enforceable debt. In view of my categoric and harmonious examination and investigation of the pleadings and evidence of both parties, I have no hesitation to hold that the accused issued cheque bearing No.073383 dt.18­07­2015 for an amount of

Rs.12,00,000/­ drawn in faovur of complainant on ICICI Bank Ltd., T.Nagar Branch,

Rajahmundry towards part discharge of legally enforceable debt covered under Ex.P5.

Further in view of clear and categoric evidence under Ex.P1 to P6, I have no hesitation to hold that the accused committed an offence u/s 138 of NI Act and as such, she is liable for consequences of the same and she is found guilty for the offence under section 138 of

NI Act and hence, accused is liable for punishment. Point is answered accordingly in favor of the complainant. 

15. In the result, this Court find the accused is guilty for the offence U/s 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, she is convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

9CC.No.401/2015, dt:27-10-2016

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court on this the 27th day of October’ 2016.

III ADDL J.F.C.MAGISTRATE, 

RAJAHMUNDRY

16. On being questioned with regard to the sentence of imprisonment to be imposed, the accused submitted that : “

17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the gravity of the offence committed by the accused and in view of the submissions made by the accused, I consider it is not just and proper to take lenient view against the accused.

17. In the result, this Court find the accused is guilty for the offence U/s 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, she is convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of _______________ for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of NI Act.

Further, the accused is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs._____________ /­ (Rupees __________only) towards compensation to the complainant as provided under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. within one month from the date of this Judgment. The remand period, if any, undergone by the accused shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcibed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 27th day of October ' 2016.

III ADDL J.F.C.MAGISTRATE, 

RAJAHMUNDRY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant :

P.W.1 : 19­05­2016, 13­06­2016 : Penukonda Uday Bhaskar P.W.2 : 23­06­2016 : Sappa Satyendra Kumar

For Accused :

Nil 8

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant :

Ex.P1Cheque For Rs.12 lakhs dt:18­07­2015 Ex.P2Cheque return memo dt: 05­08­2015 Ex.P3Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt: 26­08­2015 Ex.P4Postal Acknowledgement dt:27­08­2015 Ex.P5Certified copy of promissory note,dt: 21­05­2014 Ex,P6Certified copy of plaint in O.S.487/2015

For Accused: 

Nil. MATERIAL OBJECTS­ Nil.

III AJFCM

Rajahmundry. 

11CC.No.401/2015, dt:27-10-2016

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: RAJAHMUNDRY

PRESENT : Smt. K.Neelima, III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of first Class, Rajahmundry

C C. 465/2015

Dates of : 

Offence: : 07­08­2013 Complaint: : 26­09­2013 Appearance of Accused: : 12­06­2015 Release on Bail : ­­ Commencement of Trial: : 14­07­2016 Close of trial:: 18­08­2016 Sentence or order:: 28­09­2016 Explanation for delay : Due to non production of Witnesses in time.

Name of the complainant : Pappu Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.P.Suryanarayana Reddy, Hindu, Aged 43 years, Business, D.No.24­1­21, Weavers Colony­2, Rajahmahendravaram.

Name of the Accused : Smt.Amanchi Usha Rani, W/o.Amanchi Samkrutyan, Hindu, Aged 42 years, Busines, D.No.79­7­10, Plot No.404, Syamalanagar, Old Somalamma Puntha Road, Rajahmahendravaram.

Offence : U/S.138 r/w 142 of NI Act

Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty

Finding : Found Guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, this Court find the accused is guilty for the offence U/s 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, she is convicted U/s 255(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One year for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of NI Act. Further, the accused is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees ten lakhs only) towards compensation to the complainant as provided under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. within one month from the date of this Judgment. The remand period, if any, undergone by the accused shall be set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

Sd/­ K.NEELIMA III Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate Cum­Prl. Senior Civil Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry for favor of information 8 Copy to the accused. 

­// True Copy //­

III AJFCM

1 CC 69/15 dt.20-11-2015

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD :: RAJAHMUNDRY

PRESENT: Sri.R.Kishore Babu, Prl. Magistrate for JJB

Friday, the 20th day of November, 2015

C.C.No.69/15

Between: State: Rep., by Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. …Complainant. (Cr.Nos.172/15, 180/15 & 182/15)

And

Satyala Ajai @ Mahesh, S/o Raju, 16 yrs, SC-Mala, P&T Colony, Rajahmundry, Now at Karakkaipeta, Amalapuram. … Juvenile

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.T.Chakradhar Advocate for the juvenile and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court deliv- ered the following:

FINAL ORDER

1.Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S filed final report against the Juvenile in Conflict with law (for short – the JCL) in Cr.No.172/2015, 180/15 and 182/15 for the offences punishable U/ss 454 & 380 or 411 of IPC.

2.As per the case leveled against the JCL, in brief, on 29-05-2015 between 11.00 a.m., and 11.30 a.m., some unknown offenders entered into the house bearing D.No.3- 3-37/A, Kagraharam, Amalapuram belong one Jayanthi Lakshmi Sarada by break opening the grill lock with false key and committed theft of gold jewels by break opening the iron almyrah worth of Rs.1,20,000/- and escaped with the stolen property. Basing on the strength of a report given by Jayanthi Lakshmi Sarada, Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.172/15 U/s 454, 380 of IPC and commenced investigation by issuing FIR to all concerned.

3.It is also the case leveled against JCL that in between 14-05-2015 and 04-06- 2015 at MIG 8 HB Colony, Amalapuram Town come unknown offenders entered into the house of one Pachamalla Kamala Kumari by break opening the entrance door locks, opened iron almyrah and committed theft of gold jewels all worth about Rs.45,000/- and escaped with the stolen property. Basing on the strength of a report given by Kamala 2 CC 69/15 dt.20-11-2015

Kumari, Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.180/15 U/s 454, 380 of IPC and commenced investigation by issuing FIR to all concerned.

4.It is also case leveled against JCL that in between 04-06-2015 and 09-06-2015 in

HB Colony, Amalapuram Town some unknown offenders entered into the house of one

P.Venkata Narasimha Raju by break opening entrance door locks and committed theft of gold Apple Company I-pod (sky blue colour) worth about Rs.10,000/- and escaped with the stolen property. Basing on the strength of a report given by Narasimha Raju,

Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.182/15 U/s 454, 380 of IPC and commenced investigation by issuing FIR to all concerned.

5.During the course of investigation, he visited the scenes of offence and drawn rough sketches of the same. He got drafted the scene observation Report in

Cr.No.172/15. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements.

On 15-06-2015 at 3.00 p.m., Inspector of Police apprehended JCL near Paramjyothi

School, Red Bridge Down, Amalapuram. On enquiry, he confessed the offence and in pursuance of his confessional statement, Inspector of Police seized stolen properties in

Cr.No.172/15, 180/15 and 182/15 of Amalapuram Town P.S and other cases in the presence of mediators under the cover of Mediators Report. The JCL was forwarded to the Board for judicial custody. Later, Inspector of Police produced the JCL before the

Board on PT Warrants in Cr.Nos.180/15 and 182/15. After completion of further investigation, Inspector of Police filed final report. Thus, JCL is liable to be punished for the above Section of Law.

6.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s 454, 380 or 411 of

IPC, against Juvenile.

7.On appearance of Juveniles, copies of documents are furnished to him, as envisaged under Sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

8.Juvenile is examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/s 454 and 380 of IPC or Sec. 411 of IPC as leveled against him, is read over and explained to him in Telugu. Having understood the same, Juvenile denied the offence, and claimed to be tried.

3 CC 69/15 dt.20-11-2015

9.To substantiate its case, PWs.1 to 7 are examined, got exhibited P1 to P19 and got marked M.O.s1 to 8.

10.After completion of evidence on behalf of complainant, Juvenile is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material found against him, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

11.Heard both sides.

12. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the case leveled against juveniles for the offences punishable U/s

411 of IPC is proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

POINT

13.As per the case leveled, on the reports given by PWs1 to 3 stating that some unknown offenders committed theft of gold ornaments from their houses in their absence, Police registered the cases and commenced investigation by issuing FIRs to all concerned. They also stated that later police informed them that they have recov- ered their properties. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs1 to 3, it is clear that in their absence some unknown offenders committed theft of their property. Consequently, their evidence has no direct bearing against the JCL as the person committed theft of their properties.

14.According to PW4, on 28-05-2015 on the request of Amalapuram Town

P.S. he has taken photographs of the scene of offence situated in the house of PW1 in

H.B.Colony, Amalapuram. After developing the same, he handed over 4 photos along with CD to the Police.

15.According to PW5, on 28-05-2015 at about 8.00 a.m., S.I of Police, Amala- puram Town P.S called himself and one photographer to the house of PW1, in which the scene of offence lies, that they found that the house hold articles in the house of

PW1 were in pell-mell condition, and that what all observed at that time was reduced into writing including the taking of thumb impressions on the articles.

16.The important witnesses in this case are the mediators in whose pres- ence, the police apprehended the JCL and basing on his confessional statement, police have seized the stolen property concerning these cases. One of the mediators is exam- ined as PW6 and according to him, on 15-06-2015 at about 1.45 p.m., Amalapuram 4 CC 69/15 dt.20-11-2015

Town P.S summoned himself and another Kiran (LW11) and taken them to Paramjyothi

Public School situated near Yerra Vanthena that when they reached there, they noticed one boy standing in front of the School Gate but when he tried to run away on seeing the police, he was detained that on enquiry, he disclosed his identity particulars as that of JCL present before the Board and that then, C.I of Police taken the boy into his cus- tody. He also stated that on further enquiry, JCL confessed that he committed theft in and around Amalapuram Town and he committed theft in a house situated in Pattabhi

Veedhi in Amalapuram Town that basing on his confessional statement, C.I of Police seized an amount of Rs.500/- and Rs.8000/- after identifying the same as stolen prop- erty concerning this case from his possession in their presence under the cover of me- diators report, the admissible portion is marked as Ex.P6. He also stated that C.I of Po- lice also seized one Ipod, one pair of gold ear studs, another pair of gold ear studs hanging type and one black beads gold chain from the possession of JCL in their pres- ence under the cover of mediators report, the admissible portions are marked as

Exs.P7 to P9. He also stated that on the same day, JCL led them to a house situated in

Pullayya Center, Amalapuram in which, ECHO Bank is situated and at his instance one gold black beads chain was seized from the Bank Manager which was pledged by the mother of JCL under the cover of mediators report, the admissible portion is marked as

Ex.P10.

17. To prove the seizure of the stolen property at the instance of the JCL, PW7, who is the Inspector of Police, was examined and according to him, on the reports given by PWs 1 to 3, he registered cases in Cr.Nos. 172/15, 180/15 and 182/15 for the offences punishable U/ss 454 and 380 of IPC and he commenced investigation by issuing FIRs to all concerned. He also stated that he visited the scenes, observed and drawn rough sketches of the same. He also got photographed the scenes of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. He also stated that on 15-06-2015 at about 9.00 p.m., on receipt of credible information, he along with his staff and two mediators proceeded to Yerravanthena in Amalapuram and when they reached there, they noticed one boy running away on seeing them, that then they detained him on suspicion, and that on enquiry, he disclosed his identity particulars as that of the

JCL. He also stated that then he has taken him to his custody and on further enquiry, he confessed that he committed theft of property in Amalapuram and Rajahmundry and that basing on his confessional statements, he recovered silver articles from his 5 CC 69/15 dt.20-11-2015 possession after identifying the same as stolen property concerning three crimes along with other property in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report.

He further stated that on the same day at about 5.00 p.m., JCL led them to UCO Bank, bearing D.No.6-4-96 in Pullayya Center, Amalapuram and at his instance, he recovered one gold black beads chain from the UCO Bank, after identifying the same as part of stolen property in Cr.No.180/15 in the presence of mediators under the cover of meiators report, the admissible portion is marked as Ex.P19 that later he forwarded the

JCL to the Board for custody and that after completion of further investigation, he laid final report in this case.

18. From the evidence of the above witnesses, it is clear that PW7, who is the

Investigating Officer, has apprehended the JCL and basing on his confessional statement, he has seized stolen property concerning these cases from his possession.

Further, the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, who photographed the scene of offence and attested the scene observation report, corroborated the evidence of PW7. From the evidence of PWs6 and 7, I do not find any false motive on their part to speak against the JCL for his false implication. Therefore, the evidence of PW6 is corroborated with the evidence of PW7 in all material particulars. I also do not find any false motive on the part of PW6 and 7 in implicating the JCL falsely by planting M.Os.1 to 8. Hence, I am of the opinion that the case levelled against JCL for the offence punishable U/s 411 of IPC has been proved and accordingly, juvenile is liable to be punished.

19. In the result, I find the JCL guilty for the offence punishable U/s 411 of IPC and accordingly, he is liable to be punished U/s 255(2) Cr.P.C. M.Os 1 to 4 (gold chain square type another gold chain, gold black bead chain and two gold rupulu) were already given to PW1, M.Os 5 to 7 (gold black bead chain, one pair of gold ear studs and another pair of gold ear studs) were already given to PW2 and M.O.8 I.Pod was already given to PW3 by way of interim custody and the same holds good subject to appeal if any.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 20th day of November, 2015.

PRL. MAGISTRATE FOR J J B,

RAJAHMUNDRY

6 CC 69/15 dt.20-11-2015

20.On being questioned with regard to passing of order as provided U/s 15 of

Juvenile Justice Act, the JCL has represented that he never commit any mistakes in future and, therefore, a lenient view may be taken.

21.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration submission made by them, I think it just and proper to place the JCL under the

Supervision of DPO. Accordingly, he is placed under the Supervision of DPO for a period of one year as provided U/s 15(1) (f) of Juvenile Justice Act. The DPO is directed to send his report for every six months. The Superintendent of Observation Home for

Boys is directed to release the JCL, if he is not required in any other case.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 20th day of November, 2015.

PRL. MAGISTRATE FOR J J B,

RAJAHMUNDRY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution :For Juvenile.- None.

P.W.1 : 07-08-2015J.L.Sarada

P.W.2 : 07-08-2015P.Kamala Kumari

P.W.3 : 07-08-2015P.V.Narasimha Raju

P.W.4 :14-08-2015V.Ramana Prasad

P.W.514-08-2015D.Kanaka Raju

P.W.614-08-2015V.Viswanadham

P.W.730-10-2015Y.R.K.Srinivas

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution : For Juvenile :Nil.

Ex.P1 : Report of PW1

Ex.P2 : Report of PW2

Ex.P3 : Report of PW3

Ex.P4 : 12 photos along with 3 CDs

Ex.P5: Scene Observation Report

Ex.P6 : Marked the admissible portion in mediators report

Ex.P7 to 9 : Marked the admissible portions in mediators report

Ex.P10: Marked the admissible portion in mediators report that seizure of gold black bead chain from the ECHO Bank Manager.

Ex.P11: FIR in Cr.No.172/15

Ex.P12: Rough Sketch in Cr.No.172/15

Ex.P13: FIR in Cr.No.180/15 7 CC 69/15 dt.20-11-2015

Ex.P14: Rough Sketch in Cr.No.180/15

Ex.P15: FIR in Cr.No.182/15

Ex.P16: Rough Sketch in Cr.No.182/15

Ex.P17: Scene Observation Report in H.B.Colony.

Ex.P18 : Rough Sketch of scene of offence in H.B.Colony

Ex.P19: Marked the admissible portion in Mediators Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Gold Chain of Square Type

M.O.2: Another Gold chain

M.O.3: Gold black bead chain

M.O.4: Two gold rupulu

M.O.5: Gold black bead chain

M.O.6: One pair of gold ear studs

M.O.7: Another pair of gold ear studs

M.O.8: I-pod

PRL. MAGISTRATE FOR J J B,

RAJAHMUNDRY

SIGNATURE OF JUVENILE BOARD MEMBER :

8 CC 69/15 dt.20-11-2015

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD :: RAJAHMUNDRY

C.C.No.69/2015

CALENDAR AND FINAL ORDER

Dates of :

Offence:: 19-05-2015 14-05-2015 04-06-2015

Complaint:: 29-05-2015 04-06-2015 09-06-2015

Apprehension of Juvenile: : 16-06-2015

Released on Bail : --

Commencement of Trial: : 07-08-2015

Close of trial:: 13-11-2015

Sentence or order:: 20-11-2015

Explanation for delay : Due to non production of Complainant Witnesses.

Name of the complainant : State:Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. (Cr.No.172/2015, 180/15 and 182/15)

Name of the Juveniles : Satyala Ajai @ Mahesh, S/o Raju, 16 yrs, SC-Mala, P&T Colony, Rajahmundry, Now at Karakkaipeta, Amalapuram.

Offence : U/s 411 of IPC Plea of the Juvenile : Not Guilty

Finding : Found Guilty

Sentence or Order In the result, JCL is guilty for the offence punishable U/s 411 of IPC and accordingly, he is liable to be punished U/s 255(2) Cr.P.C.M.Os 1 to 4 (gold chain square type another gold chain, gold black bead chain and two gold rupulu) were already given to PW1, M.Os 5 to 7 (gold black bead chain, one pair of gold ear studs and another pair of gold ear studs) were already given to PW2 and M.O.8 I.Pod was already given to PW3 by way of interim custody and the same holds good subject to appeal if any. He is placed under the Supervision of DPO for a period of one year as provided U/s 15(1) (f) of Juvenile Justice Act. The DPO is directed to send his report for every six months. The Superintendent of Observation Home for Boys is directed to release the JCL, if he is not required in any other case.

PRL. MAGISTRATE FOR J J B,

RAJAHMUNDRY

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate Cum-Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for favour of information.

Copy to Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.

9 CC 69/15 dt.20-11-2015

1 CC No.19/15 dt.03-12-2015

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAHMUNDRY

PRESENT: Sri.R.Kishore Babu, III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Thursday, the 3rd day of December, 2015

C.C.No.19/2015 Between:

State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of police, III Town L&O P.S, Rajahmundry …Complainant. (Cr.No.594/2014)

And

1. Mahanthi Kartheek, S/o Suryanarayana, A/21 yrs, C/Oriya Brahmin, D.No.27-7-8, Matham Street, Jampeta, Rajahmundry.

2. Rayivarapu Venkatesh, S/o Prabhakararao, A/21 yrs, C/Kapu, Tummalova, Ramachandraraopeta, Rajahmundry. … Accused.

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri.M.Srinivasu Advocate for accused the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Inspector of Police, III Town L&O P.S, Rajahmundry filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.594/2014 for the offence punishable U/s 379, 356 of IPC.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15-11-2014 at about 5.30 a.m., while de facto complainant Dangudubiyyam Vijaya Lakshmi was plucking flowers from a tree in front of her house at Lingampeta, Krishna Nagar Rajahmundry, two persons stood at the end of her street and out of them one person approached her and snatched away her gold chain weighing about 3 sovereigns from her neck and escaped with booty. Then, the neighbours chased him and found his escaping into Vambey

Houses. Later, she presented a report to police. On the strength of a report given by

Dangudubiyyam Vijaya Lakshmi, S.I of Police registered a case in Cr.No.594/2014 and he commenced investigation by issuing FIR to all concerned.

3.During the course of investigation, S.I of Police inspected the scene of offence, observed and drawn rough sketch of the same. He also examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. On 05-12-2014 at 1.00 p.m., he 2 CC No.19/15 dt.03-12-2015 arrested A1 and A2 at the bund of River Godavari at Seshayyametta, Rajahmundry in the presence of mediators. On enquiry, they confessed that on 15th November, 2014 with a view to commit theft while they were proceeding on foot at about 5.30 a.m. When reached Krishna Nagar, Rajahmundry, they noticed one woman was plucking flowers in front of a house, A2 stood at the end of the street, then A1 went up to that woman, snatched away her gold chain from her neck and while he was escaping, she raised shouts as thief, thief. But, when some of the neighbours were chasing, he ran away towards Vambey house and concealed himself in the dark. Sometime later, A2 came and met A1. In pursuance of the confession made by the accused, S.I of Police seized stolen property concerning this case from the possession of A1 in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report. Later, S.I of Police forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, S.I of Police laid charge sheet in this case on 09-01-2015. Thus, the accused are liable to be punished for the above sections of law.

4.After perusing the Charge Sheet and other material on record, the court took cognizance of the matter for the offences punishable U/s 379 or 411 of IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents are furnished to him as per

Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6.Accused are examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C. explaining them in Telugu, the contents of the charge sheet and accusation made against them for which, accused denied the same. Charge U/s 411 of IPC against the accused is framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3, and got exhibited

Exs.P1 to P4 and also got marked M.O.1.

8.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused are examined U/s 313 of

Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material found against them, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s 411 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?” 3 CC No.19/15 dt.03-12-2015

POINT

11.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined

PWs 1 to 3; out of them, PW1 is the de facto complainant, PW2 is the mediator, in whose presence, S.I of Police arrested the accused and seized stolen property and

PW3 is the Investigating Officer, who has seized stolen property concerning this case along with other property from the possession of accused basing on their confessional statement.

12.As per the case of prosecution, on a report given by PW1 stating that two persons stood at the end of her street and out of them, one person approached her and snatched away her gold chain, police registered a case and commenced investigation by issuing FIR to all concerned. According to PW1, on 15-11-2014 at about 5.30 a.m., when she was plucking flowers from the tree situated by the side of her house, one person approached and snatched away her gold chain and fled away from the spot, that later she reported the theft of her gold chain to the Police by presenting a written report mentioning the details of stolen property. She also stated that one month thereafter, police informed her that they have recovered her gold chain, that then she obtained her stolen property by way of interim custody from the court. She also stated that she cannot identify the person, who snatched away her gold chain among the accused present before the court. Even though, PW1 could not identify the accused, who snatched away her gold chain from her neck, her evidence cannot be thrown away about the incident. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1, it is clear that the incident took place on the date of offence.

13.The important witnesses in this case are the mediators in whose presence, the S.I of Police arrested the accused and basing on their confessional statement, they have seized the stolen properties concerning this case. One of the mediators is examined as PW2 and according to him, on 05-12-2014 at about 1.00 p.m.,

S.I of Police, III Town L&O P.S summoned himself and S.Apparao (LW6) and taken them to Seshayyametta at Godavari River Bund, Rajahmundry and when they reached there, they noticed two persons were running away on seeing the police. Then, police detained the persons out of suspicion and on enquiry, they disclosed their identity 4 CC No.19/15 dt.03-12-2015 particulars as that of the accused present before the court that then, S.I of Police taken them into hi custody and on further enquiry, they confessed that they committed theft of gold chain by snatching away the same from a lady on 15-11-2014 in Krishna Nagar. He also stated that basing on the confessional statement of accused, S.I of Police seized one gold chain from their possession in their presence under the cover of mediators report, the admissible portion is marked as Ex.P2. Even though, he was cross examined by learned defence counsel, but his evidence cannot be discredited in his chief examination.

14.To prove the seizure of the stolen property at the instance of the accused,

PW3, who is the Sub Inspector of Police, was examined and according to him, on 15- 11-2014 at about 9.00 a.m., on a report given by PW1, he registered a case and commenced investigation by issuing FIR to all concerned. He also stated that 01-07- 2014 at about 2.45 p.m., on receipt of credible information, he along with his staff and two mediators proceeded to Seshayyametta at Godavari Bund, Rajahmundry, and when they reached there, they noticed two persons under suspicious circumstances, that then they detained them, and on enquiry, they disclosed their identity particulars as that of the accused present before the court. He also stated that on further enquiry, accused confessed that they have committed theft of property concerning this case and basing on their confessional statements, he has seized one gold chain concerning this case from their possession in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report and that later, he brought the accused to the police station and forwarded them to the court for remand.

15.But as already observed, PW2 is an important witness, in whose presence, the accused were alleged to have been arrested and seized stolen property concerning this case from their possession. But from the evidence of PWs2 and 3, I do not find any false motive on their part to speak against the accused for false implication of the accused. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 is corroborated with the evidence of

PW3 in all material particulars. I also do not find any false motive on the part of PW3 in implicating the accused falsely by planting M.O.1. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 411 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused are liable to be punished.

5 CC No.19/15 dt.03-12-2015

16.In the result, I find the accused guilty for the offence punishable U/s 411 of

IPC and accordingly, they are convicted U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 gold chain was already given to PW1 and the same holds good subject to appeal, if any.

Typed to dictation to the personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 3rd day of December, 2015.

III ADDL J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAJAHMUNDRY

17.On being questioned with regard to the sentence of imprisonment to be imposed,

A1 has represented that he is a student and, therefore, a lenient view may be taken., A2 has represented that after studying 10 th Class, he is attending collie works.

18.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the gravity of the offence committed by the accused and in view of the submission made by them, I consider it just and proper to sentence the accused to pay a fine only instead of sending them to Jail.

19.Accordingly, A1 and A2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three

Thousand only) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence punishable U/s 411 of IPC.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 3rd day of December, 2015.

III ADDL J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAJAHMUNDRY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution :For Accused.

PW110-09-2015D.Vijaya Lakshmi

PW228-09-2015R.Seshu, VRO PW314-10-2015V.Sampath, S.I of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution :For Accused : Nil.

Ex.P1 Report of PW1 Ex.P2Marked the Admissible Portion in mediators report Ex.P3 FIR Ex.P4Rough Sketch

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1One gold chain

III AJFCM

Rajahmundry.

6 CC No.19/15 dt.03-12-2015

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAHMUNDRY

C.C.No.19/2015

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Dates of :

Offence:: 15-11-2014

Complaint:: 15-11-2014

Apprehension of Accused: : 06-12-2014

Release on Bail : 08-12-2014

Commencement of Trial: : 10-09-2015

Close of trial:: 23-11-2015

Sentence or order:: 03-12-2015

Explanation for delay : Due to non production of Prosecution Witnesses in time.

Name of the complainant : State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of police, III Town L&O P.S, RJY. (Cr.No.594/2014)

Name of the Accused. :

1. Mahanthi Kartheek, S/o Suryanarayana, A/21 yrs, C/Oriya Brahmin, D.No.27-7-8, Matham Street, Jampeta, Rajahmundry.

2. Rayivarapu Venkatesh, S/o Prabhakararao, A/21 yrs, C/Kapu, Tummalova, Ramachandraraopeta, Rajahmundry.

Offence : U/s 411 IPC Plea of the Accused : Not Guilty

Finding : Found Guilty U/s 411 of IPC

Sentence or Order :In the result, accused are found guilty for the offence punishable

U/s 411 of IPC and accordingly, they are convicted U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 gold chain was already given to PW1 and the same holds good subject to appeal, if any. A1 and A2 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one one month each for the offence punishable U/s 411 of IPC.

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate Cum-Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for favour of information

Copy to Superintendent of Police, Rajahmundry Urban.

7 CC No.19/15 dt.03-12-2015 sCCSR 1366/13

This is a Private Complaint filed by Chit Fund Company against A1 to A3 for the offence U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

As per the complaint A1 is principle borrower to whom A2 and A3 stood as guarantors. In connection with chit transaction, A1 had issued a cheque and it was dishnoured for the reason of insufficient funds.

Perused the record and heard learned Advocate of petitioner.

A1 alone issued the said cheque. At the best the petitioner company may proceed against A2 and A3 seeking civil remedy. When A1 alone issued cheque for the amount drawn on his account, the guarantors A2 and A3 cannot be made penally liable.

Only civil liability attracts for A2 and A3. The penal provision U/s 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act is a strict liability offence against wrong doer who issued the cheque.

The petitioner company cannot proceed against A2 and A3 merely because the stood as guarantors, the cheque transaction between petitioner and A1. Basing on these 8 CC No.19/15 dt.03-12-2015 reasons, this court take cognizance of offence U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against A1 only. This complaint against A2 and A3 is dismissed without costs. The office is directed to register this complaint as CC /14 and issued summons to A1 only through court and R.P.

III A.J.F.C.M.

1 CC 68/15 dt.20-11-2015

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD :: RAJAHMUNDRY

PRESENT: Sri.R.Kishore Babu, Prl. Magistrate for JJB

Friday, the 20th day of November, 2015

C.C.No.68/15

Between: State: Rep., by Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S. …Complainant. (Cr.Nos.171/15)

And

Satyala Ajai @ Mahesh, S/o Raju, 16 yrs, SC-Mala, P&T Colony, Rajahmundry, Now at Karakkaipeta, Amalapuram. … Juvenile

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.T.Chakradhar Advocate for the juvenile and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court deliv- ered the following:

FINAL ORDER

1.Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town P.S filed final report against the Juvenile in Conflict with law (for short – the JCL) in Cr.No.171/2015 for the offences punishable

U/s 454 & 380 or 411 of IPC.

2.As per the case leveled against the JCL, in brief, on 27-05-2015 between 11.00 a.m and 12 noon in HB Colony, Amalapuram some unknown offenders entered into the house of Dangeti Veera Venkata Bala Subrahmanyam @ Raja and his side tenant by forcibly break opening entrance rear side doors and break opening the iron almyras, committed theft of Cash of Rs.1500/- and Rs.10,000/- and escaped with the stolen property. Basing on the strength of a report given by D.V.V. Bala Subrahmanyam,

Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.171/15 U/s 453, 380 of IPC and commenced investigation by issuing FIR to all concerned. During the course of investigation, on 30-05-2015, he visited the scene of offence, got drafted the scene observation report, got photographed the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the same. He also examined the witnesses (LWs 1 to7) and recorded their detailed statements. On 15-06-2015 at 3.00 p.m., Inspector of Police apprehended JCL near

Paramjyothi School, Red Bridge Down, Amalapuram. On enquiry, he confessed the offence and in pursuance of his confessional statement, Inspector of Police seized part 2 CC 68/15 dt.20-11-2015 of stolen properties concerning this case in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report. Later, he forwarded the JCL to the Board for safe custody. After completion of further investigation, Inspector of Police filed final report. Thus, JCL is liable to be punished for the above Section of Law.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s 454, 380 or 411 of

IPC, against Juvenile.

4.On appearance of Juveniles, copies of documents are furnished to him, as envisaged under Sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.Juvenile is examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. The sum and substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/s 454 and 380 of IPC or Sec. 411 of IPC as leveled against him, is read over and explained to him in Telugu. Having understood the same, Juvenile denied the offence, and claimed to be tried.

6.To substantiate its case, PWs.1 to 5 are examined, got exhibited P1 to P10 and got marked M.O.1.

7.After completion of evidence on behalf of complainant, Juvenile is examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material found against him, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the case leveled against juveniles for the offences punishable U/s

411 of IPC is proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

POINT

10.As per the case leveled, on a report given by PW1 stating that some un- known offenders committed theft of gold ornaments from their house in their absence and when they returned to their house, they noticed the breaking open the doors of their house, that on search, they found missing of Rs.1500/- and another amount of

Rs.10,000/- from his house, Police registered a case and commenced investigation by issuing FIR to all concerned. He also stated that later police informed him that they have recovered some of his cash. Therefore, from the evidence of PW1, it is clear that 3 CC 68/15 dt.20-11-2015 in his absence some unknown offenders committed theft of his property. Consequently, his evidence has no direct bearing against the JCL as the person committed theft of his property.

11.According to PW2, on 28-05-2015 on the request of Amalapuram Town

P.S. he has taken photographs of the scene of offence situated in the house of PW1 in

H.B.Colony, Amalapuram. After developing the same, he handed over 4 photos along with CD to the Police.

12.According to PW3, on 28-05-2015 at about 8.00 a.m., S.I of Police, Amala- puram Town P.S called himself and one photographer to the house of PW1, in which the scene of offence lies, that they found that the house hold articles in the house of

PW1 were in pell-mell condition, and that what all observed at that time was reduced into writing including the taking of thumb impressions on the articles.

13.The important witnesses in this case are the mediators in whose pres- ence, the police apprehended the JCL and basing on his confessional statement, police have seized the stolen property concerning this case. One of the mediators is exam- ined as PW4 and according to him, on 15-06-2015 at about 1.45 p.m., Amalapuram

Town P.S summoned himself and another Kiran (LW11) and taken them to Paramjyothi

Public School situated near Yerra Vanthena that when they reached there, they noticed one boy standing in front of the School Gate but when he tried to run away on seeing the police, he was detained that on enquiry, he disclosed his identity particulars as that of JCL present before the Board and that then, C.I of Police taken the boy into his cus- tody. He also stated that on further enquiry, he confessed that he committed theft in a house situated in Pattabhi Veedhi in Amalapuram Town that basing on his confessional statement, C.I of Police seized an amount of Rs.500/- and Rs.8000/- after identifying the same as stolen property concerning this case from his possession in their presence under the cover of mediators report, the admissible portion is marked as Ex.P4. He also stated that C.I of Police also seized one Ipod, one pair of gold ear studs, another pair of gold ear studs hanging type and one black beads gold chain from the posses- sion of JCL in their presence under the cover of mediators report, the admissible por- tions are marked as Exs.P5 to P7. He also stated that on the same day, JCL led them to a house situated in Pullayya Center, Amalapuram in which, ECHO Bank is situated and at his instance one gold black beads chain was seized from the Bank Manager 4 CC 68/15 dt.20-11-2015 which was pledged by the mother of JCL under the cover of mediators report, the ad- missible portion is marked as Ex.P8.

14. To prove the seizure of the stolen property at the instance of the JCL, PW5, who is the Inspector of Police, was examined and according to him, on a report given by PW1, he registered a case in Cr.No.171/15 for the offence punishable U/s 454, 380 of IPC, commenced investigation by issuing FIR to all concerned, that then he visited the scene of offence situated at the house of PW1 in H.B. Colony, observed and drawn rough sketch of the same. He also got photographed the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. He also stated that on 15-06- 2015 at about 1.00 p.m., on receipt of credible information, he along with his staff and two mediators proceeded to Yerravanthena in Amalapuram and when they reached there, they noticed one boy running away on seeing them, that then they detained him on suspicion, and that on enquiry, the said boy disclosed his identity particulars as that of the JCL. He also stated that then he has taken him to his custody and on further enquiry, he confessed that he committed theft of property in Amalapuram and

Rajahmundry and that basing on his confessional statements, he recovered an amount of Rs.9,500/- from his possession after identifying the same as stolen property concerning this case in the presence of mediators under the cover of mediators report, that later he forwarded him to the Board for custody and that after completion of further investigation, he laid final report in this case.

15. From the evidence of the above witnesses, it is clear that PW5, who is the

Investigating Officer, has apprehended the JCL and basing on his confessional statement, he has seized stolen property concerning this case from his possession.

Further, the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, who photographed the scene of offence and attested the scene observation report, corroborated the evidence of PW5. From the evidence of PWs4 and 5, I do not find any false motive on their part to speak against the JCL for his false implication. Therefore, the evidence of PW4 is corroborated with the evidence of PW5 in all material particulars. I also do not find any false motive on the part of PW4 in implicating the JCL falsely by planting M.O.1. Hence, I am of the opinion that the case levelled against JCL for the offence punishable U/s 411 of IPC has been proved and accordingly, juvenile is liable to be punished.

5 CC 68/15 dt.20-11-2015

16. In the result, I find the JCL guilty for the offence punishable U/s 411 of IPC and accordingly, he is liable to be punished U/s 255(2) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 Cash of Rs.9,500/- was already given to PW1 and the same holds good subject to appeal, if any.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 20th day of November, 2015.

PRL. MAGISTRATE FOR J J B,

RAJAHMUNDRY

17.On being questioned with regard to passing of order as provided U/s 15 of

Juvenile Justice Act, the JCL has represented that he never commit any mistakes in future and, therefore, a lenient view may be taken.

18.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration submission made by them, I think it just and proper to place the JCL under the

Supervision of DPO. Accordingly, he is placed under the Supervision of DPO for a period of one year as provided U/s 15(1) (f) of Juvenile Justice Act. The DPO is directed to send his report for every six months. The Superintendent of Observation Home for

Boys is directed to release the JCL, if he is not required in any other case.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 20th day of November, 2015.

PRL. MAGISTRATE FOR J J B,

RAJAHMUNDRY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution :For Juvenile.- None.

P.W.1 : 07-08-2015D.V.V.Bala Subrahmanyam P.W.2 : 14-08-2015V.Ramana Prasad P.W.3 : 14-08-2015D.Kanaka Raju P.W.4 :14-08-2015V.Viswanadham P.W.5 :30-10-2015Y.R.K.Srinivas, Inspector of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution : For Juvenile :Nil.

Ex.P1 : Report of P.W.1 Ex.P2 : Four Photos along with CD Ex.P3 : Scene Observation Report Ex.P4 : Marked the admissible portion in mediators report Ex.P5 to 7: Marked the admissible portion in mediators report Ex.P8 : Marked the admissible portion in mediators report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Cash of Rs.9,500/-

PRL. MAGISTRATE FOR J J B,

RAJAHMUNDRY

6 CC 68/15 dt.20-11-2015

SIGNATURE OF JUVENILE BOARD MEMBER :

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD :: RAJAHMUNDRY

C.C.No.68/2015

CALENDAR AND FINAL ORDER

Dates of :

Offence:: 27-05-2015

Complaint:: 27-05-2015

Apprehension of Juvenile: : 03-07-2015

Released on Bail : --

Commencement of Trial: : 07-08-2015

Close of trial:: 13-11-2015

Sentence or order:: 20-11-2015

Explanation for delay : Due to non production of Complainant Witnesses.

Name of the complainant : State:Inspector of Police Amalapuram (Cr.No.171/2015)

Name of the Juveniles : Satyala Ajai @ Mahesh, S/o Raju, 16 yrs, SC-Mala, P&T Colony, Rajahmundry, Now at Karakkaipeta, Amalapuram.

Offence : U/s 411 of IPC Plea of the Juvenile : Not Guilty

Finding : Found Guilty

Sentence or Order In the result, JCL is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s 411 of IPC and accordingly, he is liable to be punished U/s 255(2) Cr.P.C. M.O.1 Cash of

Rs.9,500/- was already given to PW1 and the same holds good subject to appeal, if any.

He is placed under the Supervision of DPO for a period of one year as provided U/s 15(1) (f) of Juvenile Justice Act. The DPO is directed to send his report for every six months. The Superintendent of Observation Home for Boys is directed to release the

JCL, if he is not required in any other case.

PRL. MAGISTRATE FOR J J B,

RAJAHMUNDRY

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate Cum-Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for favour of information.

Copy to Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.

7 CC 68/15 dt.20-11-2015

1 CC No.78/15 dt.03-12-2015

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAHMUNDRY

PRESENT: Sri.R.Kishore Babu, III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Thursday, the 03rd day of December, 2015

C.C.No.78/2015 Between: State: Represented by Sub- Inspector of police, III Town L & O PS, RJY. …Complainant. (Cr.No.632/14)

And

Karri Satish Kumar, S/o Adinaryana, a/33 yrs, C/Viswa Brahmin, D.No.60-12-17, P&T Colony, Rajahmundry, rider of Yamaha Motor Cycle Regd.No.AP13 F 1177. … Accused.

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri. P.Rama Raju Advocate for accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.S.I of Police, III Town L&O P.S, Rajahmundry filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.632/14 for the offence punishable U/s 304 (A) of IPC.

2.Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that, one K.Suryanarayana @ Suri herein after called as “the deceased” had been residing with his younger daughter situated near Nagaraju School, opposite street to Brothern Church, Weavers Colony,

Rajahmundry and had been working as night watchman in Raja Steels near Petrol

Bunk, beside Raja Theater, Korukonda Road, Rajahmundry. While so, on 12-12-2014, at about 6.00 p.m., deceased attended his duty at about 10-45 p.m., but when he went for urination at the vacant site behind Syndicate Bank on the other side of Raja Steels and while he was returning to his shop by crossing the road at about 11.00 p.m., accused while riding Yamaha Motor cycle bearing registration No.AP13 F 1177 from

Kambala Cheruvu towards Korukonda Road in a rash and negligent manner and endangering to human lives, without blowing horn, dashed the deceased due to which, he fell down and sustained severe injuries on the left side of his forehead, both legs and right hand, but immediately accused escaped from there. Having witnessed the occurrence, some of the passersby informed the matter to the owner of the deceased 2 CC No.78/15 dt.03-12-2015 by getting his phone number printed on the name board of the shop. Then, the shop owner (LW4) came to the scene and immediately got shifted the injured (deceased) to the Government General Hospital by Amublance. Later, the owner informed the matter to the daughter of the deceased, who in turn informed the same to her relatives and came to the Hospital. But on the intervening night of 2/3-12-2014, the injured succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Then, the de facto complainant went to the Police Station and presented a report.

3.On the strength of a report given by the de facto complainant, a case was registered by Woman HC (LW17) and commenced investigation by issuing FIR to all concerned. During the course of investigation, HC visited the scene of offence, got prepared scene observation report with the help of mediators (LWs 12 and 13), got photographed the scene of offence and dead body through a private photographer. He drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars (LWs 12 to 14) as well as the blood relatives of the deceased (LWs1 and 8 to 10) and recorded their detailed statements.

Later, the dead body was got dispatched for getting autopsy. Subsequently, S.I of

Police (LW18) took up investigation, verified the investigation done by the Head

Constable and found it on correct lines. On 05-12-2014, accused served with notice under Sec.41 of Cr.P.C. But as he complied with the conditions of the notice, he was released on bail. The Asst. MVI (LW15) having inspected the crime vehicle, issued his report with his opinion that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Medical Officer (LW16) conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Postmortem report with her opinion that the cause of death of deceased is due to shock, haemorrhage due to multiple injuries especially injury to the vital organs brain and liver and multiple fractures of the bones. After completion of further investigation, S.I of Police laid charge sheet in this case. Thus, the accused is liable to be punished for the above section of law.

3 CC No.78/15 dt.03-12-2015

4.After perusing the Charge Sheet and other material on record, the court took cognizance of the matter for the offence punishable U/s 304 A of IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, this court furnished copies to him as per Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6.Accused is examined U/s 251 of Cr.P.C and accusation U/ss 304 A of IPC is leveled against him, the same is read over and explained to him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P10.

8.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, accused is examined U/s 313

Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material found against him, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for

the offences punishable U/ss 304(A) IPC beyond all reasonable

doubts?”

POINT

11.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable

U/s 304 A IPC, the prosecution has to satisfy the following ingredients:

Death of a person must have been caused in accident.

The accused is the rider of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he has caused such death It must have been caused by rash or negligent act and such an act must not amount to culpable homicide.

Ingredient No.1:

12.There can be no dispute with regard to the death of one K.Suryanarayana due to the accident in question. Apart from the oral evidence of PW3, there is the document any evidence under Exs.P1, P6 and P7 which clearly proves the same.

Therefore, the first aspect of the matter has been satisfied by the prosecution.

4 CC No.78/15 dt.03-12-2015

Ingredient No.2:

13.With regard to the identification of the accused as the rider of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, as rightly pointed out by the learned defence counsel, there is no direct evidence connecting the accused to the motor cycle involved in the accident. According to PW1, who is the daughter of the deceased, on 02-12-2014 at about 10.30 p.m., when she was at her house, three boys came and informed that her father met with accident and a motor cycle hit him in front of petrol bunk while proceeding from Kambalacheruvu towards Korukonda in speed. In Ex.P1, it was mentioned that the person, who was riding motor cycle bearing registration No.AP13 F 1177 in a rash and negligent manner, hit her father. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not a direct one and it is only a circumstantial in nature.

14.Even though, PW2 is alleged to be an eye witness to the occurrence but he has given a go-by to the case of prosecution by deposing that they noticed the deceased with injuries lying on the right side of the road. But he denied the suggestion put by learned APP that due to hit of motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP13 F 1177 in a rash and negligent manner, the deceased died. But according to PW3, on coming to know about the accident, they rushed to the scene of offence situated in front of his shop and found his watchman lying on the road with injuries and also found Yamaha

Motor Cycle bearing registration No.1177 at the spot.

15.With regard to the connection of the accused to the motor cycle involved in the accident, PW7, who is the Investigating Officer, has stated that on 11-12-2014, when the accused surrendered before S.I of Police, he served notice U/s 41 of Cr.P.C and later released him on bail on his furnishing bonds. In the cross examination, she admitted that she has not examined the owner of the motor cycle to ascertain about ownership of the vehicle.

16.From the evidence of above witnesses, it is clear that even though, it is assumed for a moment that the motor cycle bearing registration No.AP13 F 1177 was involved in the accident, but there is no documentary proof seized to prove that the accused was the rider of the motor cycle at the time of the accident. Even the

Investigating Officer has not seized anything from the accused connecting him to the motor cycle. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that the 5 CC No.78/15 dt.03-12-2015 accused is the rider of the motor cycle at the time of the accident. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was the rider of the motor cycle involved in the accident. Accordingly, the second ingredient of the matter has not been satisfied by the prosecution.

Ingredient No.3:

17.As rightly argued by learned defence counsel, there is no direct evidence regarding the manner in which, the accident took place. Further, PW7 has admitted in her cross examination that as per her investigation, PW2 and LW3(Srinu) are the eye witnesses to the occurrence but their houses were not situated nearby the scene of offence and that they have witnessed the accident as passersby. She also admitted that

PW2 and LW3(Srinu) themselves stated before her that they are eye witnesses to the occurrence but none stated about them. But as already observed, PW2 has given a go- by to the case of prosecution. Therefore, there is no direct evidence regarding the manner, in which, the accident took place. Hence, the third ingreident of the matter has not been satisfied by the prosecution.

18.In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 304 A of IPC. Accordingly, he is entitled to an acquittal.

19.In the result, I find the accused not guilty for the offence U/s 304 (A) of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 03rd day of December, 2015.

III ADDL J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAJAHMUNDRY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution : For Accused :None.

PW113­08­2015P.Sruya Kantham

PW207­09­2015S.Venkateswararao

PW3 15­09­2015Ch.Bhuvanendra Kumar

PW413­10­2015G.Thirumalarao

PW528­10­2015N.Jaggarao 6 CC No.78/15 dt.03-12-2015

PW605­11­2015Dr.G.Lakshmi Gayathri

PW712­11­2015K.Jaya Lakshmi, A.S.I of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED.

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1Report of PW1

Ex.P2Sec.161 of Cr.P.C Statement of PW2

Ex.P3Three Positive Photos along with CD of scene of offence

Ex.P4One Positive Photo of dead body of the deceased

Ex.P5 Scene Observation Report

Ex.P6Inquest Report

Ex.P7Postmortem Examination Report

Ex.P8FIR

Ex.P9Rough Sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P10M.V.I Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS-Nil

III AJFCM

7 CC No.78/15 dt.03-12-2015

CALENDER

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAHMUNDRY

PRESENT: Sri.R.Kishore Babu, III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

C.C.No.78/2015 Dates of :

Offence:: 02-12-2014

Complaint:: 03-12-2014

Apprehension of Accused: : 05-12-2014

Release on Bail : 05-12-2014

Commencement of Trial: : 13-08-2015

Close of trial:: 01-12-2015

Sentence or order:: 03-12-2015

Explanation for delay : Due to non-production of prosecution witnesses in time.

Name of complainant : State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, III Town L&O P.S, Rajahmundry. (Cr.No.632/14)

Name of the accused : Karri Satish Kumar, S/o Adinaryana, A/33 yrs, C/Viswa Brahmin, D.No.60-12-17, P&T Colony, Rajahmundry, rider of Yamaha Motor Cycle Regd.No.AP13 F 1177.

Offence : U/s 304 (A) of IPC

Plea of the accused : Not guilty

Finding : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s 304 (A) of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time.

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate Cum-Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for favour of information.

Copy to Superintendent of Police, Rajahmundry Urban.